[simondedalus]

You cannot have a healthy society if only the powerless are allowed to criticize the powerful.

She isn't even resigning in protest of Google's involvement, but the board's forbidding her to criticize any of Google's actions.

[facepalm]

Why should a sponsor finance a project that tells people the sponsor is evil?

I don't really see the problem here. Two parties disagree, so they go separate ways. End of story.

[Iftheshoefits]

When imbalances of power exist, it's almost never as simple as "two parties disagree, so they go separate ways."

We don't have complete information, and the article is clearly a one-sided representation of the situation. That said, based on her account, it seems one of these things is true:

1. Code Club's board acted independently of any action by Google in an attempt to stop some perceived conflict before it started (e.g. Google balking at further support because on of their key people says some negative things about Google now and then).

2. Code Club's board acted based on off-the-record or unofficial complaints by unknown Google representatives about the negative things Linda says/said.

3. Code Club's board acted based on on-the-record/official complaints by Google.

If the former, the board is in error. They have neither the obligation nor the right to demand anybody in the organization, Linda or whomever, to behave in any manner when not "on the clock." Our society is conditioned to accept the imbalance of power that makes such a demand seem reasonable, but it doesn't have to be that way (my opinion, if it's not clear, is it ought not be that way).

If it's either of the latter, it's an egregious abuse of power on Google's part (and an obsequious act on the Board's part). Google's relative power and influence makes Code Club a rounding error in terms of their PR efforts, either direction. In this scenario, Google's support of Code Club is little more than an advertising purchase masquerading as giving back to the community, which is certainly not unusual, I suppose, but it's also not something that leads to anything like an equal/level playing field.

If she's making stuff up, well, that's pretty bad on her part, and at least as awful as any of the above items.

[smikhanov]

They have neither the obligation nor the right to demand anybody in the organization, Linda or whomever, to behave in any manner when not "on the clock."

Of course they do. A company (that board ultimately represents) is not a human being and it can't have opinions on certain things, but it can has something resembling ethos, enforced by the employees. Anyone joining a company does so voluntarily, and can expect consequences when they do something that is not aligned with that ethos.

Mozilla, for example, ousted Eich because of him doing something anti-LGBT "off the clock". As a company, Mozilla has an "ethos" that is all about diversity and their board is absolutely free to act accordingly.

Also wanted to add that there's also no "imbalance of power" here (i.e. no need to paint it all black). Certain highly valuable CEOs stay in their positions even when they say and do nasty things, so a situation when Linda would be more valuable to Code Club than Google sponsorship is entirely possible.

[chc]

Mozilla ousted Eich because a vocal group was calling for his head. They knew about his donation for years and didn't care. The decision was pragmatic, not ethical.

[otakucode]

>Why should a sponsor finance a project that tells people the sponsor is evil?

Because they are sponsoring the project in order to accomplish the goals the project works toward - not because they are buying friends. If they want to teach kids to code, sponsoring Code Club gives them that. If they insist on also getting people to censor themselves and lie, then they're just being spoiled children.

[paulhauggis]

I disagree.

Spoiled children say things without thinking (or accepting the consequences), which sounds like the director, not Google.

"Because they are sponsoring the project in order to accomplish the goals the project works toward - not because they are buying friends."

Yes, but the director is running that project and represents the company. I'm still curious as to why they even accepted the money in the first place if they think Google is so "evil".

"If they insist on also getting people to censor themselves and lie, then they're just being spoiled children."

Private companies aren't the government. If you continue to make a company look bad, they will not want to do business with you (and have no obligation to do so). It's just common sense.

[simondedalus]

It's worth pointing out that nowhere in her note does she say "Google is evil." In fact, she doesn't even use the word 'evil'.

The only place where an entity's being evil has been mentioned is in these strawman comments.

The issue is not a board member spreading around the opinion that a sponsor "is evil." The issue is whether it's alright to forbid any criticism of a sponsor's actions by board members (or by management, or other high level / prominent figures).

If you choose to argue against, for example, me (since you responded to me), please understand the position. It is not that Google or anyone at all is evil. It's that no one's actions can be beyond criticism in a healthy society (or a healthy business, or a healthy relationship, etc).

Further, it is especially dangerous when people like founders, politicians, board members, etc can't express opinions of the actions of other prominent figures. When that is the case, the only people who can complain are those people whose voices won't be listened to. How does that make society better?

The position I, at least, am arguing for is that it is a socially irresponsible policy to force board members to express uniform approval of all actions taken by a sponsor.

Expressing disapproval of a company's actions is far from saying the company is evil, or that you're too good to cooperate with the company, etc. Please avoid straw man arguments if you want to have useful discussions.

[facepalm]

She writes: " Even if Google was mostly good, I need to have the right to call them out when they do bad things."

Are you really nitpicking about "evil" vs "doing bad things"?

And everybody can say whatever they want, and criticize whoever they want. But companies are not obliged to keep people on the payroll who use their position to make the same company look bad. The whole assumption is absurd.

Board members forbidding whatever is not the issue at all. The job of the board members is to keep the business afloat and prevent harm from coming to it. Bosses give their employees instructions all the time.

[ascendantlogic]

They don't have to. But if a sponsor is doing something that someone fundamentally disagrees with, they shouldn't be told to shut their mouths so the money keeps rolling in. That's called corruption.

[facepalm]

Um no that is not called corruption. Corruption is siphoning away money and other perks in an illegal way.

[ascendantlogic]

Compromising your beliefs for money is a form of corruption. It's just one that people are forced to do every day to varying degrees.

From Wikipedia[1]: 'In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement.'

Keeping your mouth shut in exchange for sponsorship money sounds a bit like bribery to me.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

[viraptor]

You should be always able to criticise companies/organisations you depend on. Otherwise, why would they improve anything for you?

Taking an example on a bigger scale: you should be able to openly criticise some actions of the government, even if you're receiving benefits.

[erikpukinskis]

What's wrong with people in your community taking about the ways you are bad? If there isn't consensus about your goodness, that means you are either bring bad in ways you don't understand or you're being good in ways your community doesn't understand. Either way keeping a conversation going is a big party of the solution. Shutting down the conversion seems like a surefire way to make your relationship with your community worse.

[facepalm]

Are you employed? Could you tell us some things you really dislike about your company? (Giving your real name and your employers real name)

Rolling with the government example: should the government be obliged to fund communists (or other people who think the current government is evil)?

[chipotle_coyote]

The government funds people who think the current government is evil all the time. They don't fund them because they think the current government is evil, but I can assure you that there are people receiving unemployment benefits, social security, and other "entitlement program" checks that disagree loudly and publicly with the government all the time. (Some of them are probably critical of the same entitlement programs they rely on.)

[facepalm]

They get money to eat and pay rent, not to build ideological organizations with the aim to undermine the government. You are talking about somebody completely different.

[viraptor]

Yes I am. No, I couldn't. That's exactly what I think is not right and should change.

[jlarocco]

Not saying it doesn't make it not true.

If Google doesn't like people calling them out on it then they should stop doing it. Honestly, it seems pretty childish of them to threaten to pull sponsorship because somebody called them on their shit.